http://www1.eps.gov/spg/ODA/USSOCOM/SOAL%2DKB/H92222%2D05%2DR%2D0017/SynopsisP.html

check that out, Army going back to 45
Humpy

Army learned a lesson in the Philapine Islands just after the turn of the last century: any of the .38 caliber cartridges in use then would kill an angry knife-wielding native too slowly, allowing said native to hack Army personnel to pieces. A .45 would knock the native over and he wouldn't get up. Lesson was used in WW1, WW2, Korea, and 'Nam and then the Army up & forgot when pressed to adopt the 9 mm Nato std. pistol round (9x19 aka 9mm Parabellum). They've relearned an expensive lesson in Iraq, I guess.

Geeee, let's reinvent the wheel huh? Oh, well, what's old is new I guess. Glad to see that it appears our men and women in harm's way will have an appropriate stick to fill their fists instead of poodle-shooters.

Thanks for the post!

God bless,

I wonder who it will be...

I doubt beretta can make a .45 on their current platform of a 92 (that would be freakin' sweet by the way)... and they all have external safeties/decockers...

Why not just go back to a 1911 or 1911 style platform, and NOT re-invent the wheel.

The first thing that came to mind in a 45 for me was the Smith 4506. Stainless, Double action, external safeties/decockers, and 45, 45, 45...!

For an encore, we go back to the M-1 Garand and the 30-06, or in the very least the M-14 in .308.

Lee L.

Didn't the government decide to give the contract to CZ to build the guns. I think I remmber an ariticl in GUNS magazine about it.

[QUOTE]Army learned a lesson in the Philapine Islands just after the turn of the last century: any of the .38 caliber cartridges in use then would kill an angry knife-wielding native too slowly, allowing said native to hack Army personnel to pieces.


Great story, been repeated for over 100 years now. And now, as a certain radio commentator says, the rest of the story: The .30 US, AKA .30/40/220 Krag, had the same problem! There were also reported failures to stop with the SA Colt .45s hurriedly drawn for storage and shipped to the Phillipines. About the only 100%, sure fire stopper was the 1897 Winchester with 00BK.

They have been talking about it since the first Persian Gulf in 1991, but I do not know when they are going to do it. If it was up to me, I would go for .40 S&W.

I did some penetration and expansion tests with a .40 S&W Beretta and a .45 1911 and a .45 Beretta.... While the .45s performed well, the .40 was better pentration and only marginally smaller expansion...

I did some penetration and expansion tests with a .40 S&W Beretta and a .45 1911 and a .45 Beretta.... While the .45s performed well, the .40 was better pentration and only marginally smaller expansion...


Very true sir,

.45 caliber was designed about 100 years ago. But .40 S&W caliber was designed in mid 80s. As we all know that we had a much better technology in 80s.

did someone mention the M14:D

my all-time favorite gun.
Granted, I did feel a bit silly after I insisted on taking it hunting 1 season:o

It is no surprise to hear of this. While stationed at Fort Stewart recently i read an article in a major gun magazine about a 1911 platform weapon i believe was made from Springfield that the military was trying out. The only major difference was that it used an outside extractor and came with a light rail as standard eqipment. I can't remember the military accronem that was used for it's model but it had something to do with the USMC. Alas, our fellow men and wemon and arms have passed many a story along to me of the berretta's failures and as many of you may remember it had a slide crackage problem when they were first issued. The problems that are being addressed are 1) the 9mm's failure to quickly stop an armed person with a full auto AK-47 type weapon, 2) retained energy of the 9mm vs the 45 at ranges beyond 25 yds which is sometimes standard over there, and 3) the berretta's seem to dislike the sand due to the numerous jams and feeding problems. Around 6 months ago the USMC retrieved 600 original 199A1's from storage and acquired 500 from Springfield (?) and sent them over seas for a series of "duty" test. They were very pleased with the results. Hopefully, the military may realize that the problems lay not with the 1911A1 nor the 45ACP cartridge but that many times over we were putting new or used parts on wore out frames. Hope this tidbit helps. :D

Why not the .40? Ever since we agreed to international sanctions to avoid expanding or fragmenting small arms ammo, its hardball only. Without expanding bullets, diameter and weight mean everything and .40 is only halfway from .35 to .45.

Very true sir,

.45 caliber was designed about 100 years ago. But .40 S&W caliber was designed in mid 80s. As we all know that we had a much better technology in 80s.

How has the technology changed? We are still burning powder in a confined space inorder to create compressed gas to propel the projectile.There has been improvements in powder,primers,the steel the firearms are made from, etc.,but the technology is basicaly the same

How has the technology changed? We are still burning powder in a confined space inorder to create compressed gas to propel the projectile.There has been improvements in powder,primers,the steel the firearms are made from, etc.,but the technology is basicaly the same


S&W is a great company and back in 80s they spent a lot of time over their .40.
Fluid mechanic and aerodynamic tests to maximize the range and accuracy for their .40 and they did a lot of research to maximize the damage on the human tissue. Many of those researches were not doable 100 years ago. There is no doubt 9mms and .45s are killers. But .40S&W are very efficient.


http://www.special-warfare.net/data_base/201_individual_weapons/image/40sw_01.jpg

S&W is a great company and back in 80s they spent a lot of time over their .40.
Fluid mechanic and aerodynamic tests to maximize the range and accuracy for their .40 and they did a lot of research to maximize the damage on the human tissue. Many of those researches were not doable 100 years ago. There is no doubt 9mms and .45s are killers. But .40S&W are very efficient.


http://www.special-warfare.net/data_base/201_individual_weapons/image/40sw_01.jpg

It is still the same technolgy. A 45 super is a 45 ACP loaded to high pressures about the same as a 40 Smith this is not new technology it is the same technology. We are not shooting ray guns we are still shooting projectiles propelled by compressed gas by increasing pressure thus speed does change the technology,it is nothing new

It is still the same technolgy. A 45 super is a 45 ACP loaded to high pressures about the same as a 40 Smith this is not new technology it is the same technology. We are not shooting ray guns we are still shooting projectiles propelled by compressed gas by increasing pressure thus speed does change the technology,it is nothing new

so, you think the shape, size and the amount of the gun powder does not matter.

S&W came up with a new shap for their .40s.
So, as the wait of the bullets and the amount of gun powders. They used computers to find the best possible shape.
As you said the basics are the same. But, one used high tech to design its caliber.

so, you think the shape, size and the amount of the gun powder does not matter.

S&W came up with a new shap for their .40s.
So, as the wait of the bullets and the amount of gun powders. They used computers to find the best possible shape.
As you said the basics are the same. But, one used high tech to design its caliber.


I think that you are talking about tweking a technology not new technology.Internal combustion engines have been tweaked and or improved over the years but they are still the same technology as they still consume fossil fuels and still have have internal combustion.In my first post I said that cases, primers powder, steel have all improved, but it is still the same technology. The best of the projectile for terminal performance is the same as always FLAT POINTS.This was known as far back as the 1800's when Whitworth announced as much to the British government.All other design are about marketing and sells go to the FBI's wound ballistics web site and research the material there.

I think that you are talking about tweking a technology not new technology.Internal combustion engines have been tweaked and or improved over the years but they are still the same technology as they still consume fossil fuels and still have have internal combustion.In my first post I said that cases, primers powder, steel have all improved, but it is still the same technology. The best of the projectile for terminal performance is the same as always FLAT POINTS.This was known as far back as the 1800's when Whitworth announced as much to the British government.All other design are about marketing and sells go to the FBI's wound ballistics web site and research the material there.

very true sir

Sounds like BFL is saying that newer technology was used to develop and research the round, not that the round itself incorporates a lot of new technology.

Sounds like you are arguing over semantics rather than the merits of a given round...

Never won a gunfight. :D

BFL and jwp475, You guys both have a good point.

When I worked in Law enforcement one of the big arguments against the 45 was how hard it was to shoot effectively and how hard it was for officers with a minimum amount of training to remain effective with it. Many officers only discharge their weapons when they qualify and some will not fire a weapon in a police shooting situation in an entire career.

Lots of law enforcement agencies used the 38 special and 357 magnum revolvers, usually loaded with 38+P for just this reason.

When the large capacity 9mm semi-autos came on the scene there was a rush to replace the revolvers with them. The upshot was it was much easier to train the troops to use this far less recoiling gun effectivly, but, bad guys hopped up on the prefered chemical of the day sometimes didn't stop like they should.

When the 40 S&W round became available it did offer a median between the 9mm and the great old 45. Many of the agencies whom had been fighting the costs of trying to train folks to use the 45 or were facing the problem of the 9mm being less than desirable in certian cases jumped on the 40 bandwagon.

As a firearms training officer it was easier to train and maintain compentency with the 40 than the 45, making more effective officers. It also gave those folks a better performing tool that was easier for them to control and shoot than the vererable old 45.

Most of the departments in Idaho have now adopted the 40 for just those reasons. When I was in the military the old 1911 was the standard issue weapon. There were folks whom loved it and there were also lots of young folks that after shooting it didn't want to use it because of the recoil and the time involved to master it.

Effectiveness of any weapon can be double edged sword.
Sometimes compromise can be good.

facuettbb,You are correct about the comprise between effectiveness and shootablity for some folks.My point is that any improvements in componants can also be applied to any existing cartridge.There has been much effort put into the smaller calibers [improved loadings] inorder to bring their performance up to the larger bores.The improved performance loads of the 45 do not generate the same interst as the smaller calibers.A quality 230 grain 45 @1000fps as Buufalo Bore loads or a 230 grain @ 1200 fps from the 45 Super which is nothing more than a high pressure 45 acp is VERY effective .True, it is more recoil than many would want.All of the comercial semi auto pistol rounds are straight walled rimless design nothing new. All are limitted in lenght due to magazine constraints.When speaking of effectiveness only bigger is better when factoring in other real world need and or comprimises bigger may not be the best choice.

facuettbb,You are correct about the comprise between effectiveness and shootablity for some folks.My point is that any improvements in componants can also be applied to any existing cartridge.There has been much effort put into the smaller calibers [improved loadings] inorder to bring their performance up to the larger bores.The improved performance loads of the 45 do not generate the same interst as the smaller calibers.A quality 230 grain 45 @1000fps as Buufalo Bore loads or a 230 grain @ 1200 fps from the 45 Super which is nothing more than a high pressure 45 acp is VERY effective .True, it is more recoil than many would want.All of the comercial semi auto pistol rounds are straight walled rimless design nothing new. All are limitted in lenght due to magazine constraints.When speaking of effectiveness only is better when factoring in other real world need and or comprimises bigger may not be the best choice.

I was just hoping you wouldn't loose your sense of humor over another post that disigreed with you. Not good for your blood pressure.

We faced that problem of recoil vs effectiveness in law enforcement training. Some small departments were simply unable to budget training necessary to make officers competent with the calibres that were proven stoppers like the 45. They ended up with much less effective weapons, though they were able to use these weapons with more compentence. Talk about getting into a catch 22 circular argument.

It's kind of like the advance in hunting bullet construction over the last few years. The bonded core bullets are a wonderful answer to smaller calibre bullets performance at closer and longer distances where they were lacking before. This all happened because of new technoligy.

I think we are seeing technoligy improving those smaller calibre rounds a bunch in the last few years.

Bonded bullets have been made at least since the 60's [ such as Bitterroot bullets] better bullets is the improving of an existing technology.Bonded bullets are still lead inside of a jacket inorder to controll expansion.A ray gun would be a new technology

A timely discussion. Just talked a little with JWP today, have to consider the following.

The 'effectiveness' of a round can be described (statistically) as the theoretical maximum effectiveness of the round, times the probability of it being correctly applied in the field.

Thus (for example), if the round is 100% effective, but only 75% of the population is capable of applying it correctly, it is still only (on average) a 75% effective solution.

A 75% effective round, capable of being applied correctly by nearly 100% of the shooters, ends up being 75% effective. No surprise there.

I do think that the great disparity of skill level accounts for the smaller rounds showing effectiveness in actual field conditions. After all... you can't miss fast enough to win. Even Hatcher, et al, indicated in their work that the most important factor was shot placement / training.

Of course, for those who can drive the .45 auto..... more power to them! :D

The best gun is the one in your hand when you need it. Having said that, opinions being what they are, here's mine:

I have no experience with the 10mm short, (40 S&W).
I am sure it would do well as a defense round, but I have no need to try one.

The 45 ACP is a time-proven, effective man stopper. The 9mm is less proven, but absolutly beats a sharp stick for defense.

I believe the 45 ACP is the way to go - NATO interchangabilty be ****ed.

While the 1911 is a good design, it is not DA. There are plenty of D.A. .45's out there, Ruger being one of them. anyone ever heard of a Ruger breaking? When you are restricted to hardball, BIGGER IS BETTER. Having fired 9mm .40, and .45, I prefer the .45.

Just noticed that bit about it being easier to train police officers with a .40 than a .45. Maybe more training is needed?
The same thinking saddled the British Army in WW2 with a revolver shooting basicaly a .38S&W cartridge with a slightly heavier bullet. Sure it was easier to shoot, but when someone is trying to kill you, you really want to stop them from getting their wish ;)

Recently read an article, which I cannot locate, in which the services were responding to the continuing demand for a large bore pistol. The article explains that service evaluators gathered a representative group of large/small, male/female and put them through trials with various handguns and calibers. At the conclusion of testing, they took not only the test results but also the impressions and opinions of the testers and came up with the desired attributes. The new arm was to be a .45 (this was non-negotiable to the participants), trigger actuated (or DA), of good ammo capacity and available both with/without external safety. Results are interesting considering the makeup of the test staff. It appears also that improvements in training and recent field experience held a large influence. The old concerns regarding the ability of various statures to handle the manual of arms and recoil were not issues. Interesting.

Recently read an article, which I cannot locate, in which the services were responding to the continuing demand for a large bore pistol. The article explains that service evaluators gathered a representative group of large/small, male/female and put them through trials with various handguns and calibers. At the conclusion of testing, they took not only the test results but also the impressions and opinions of the testers and came up with the desired attributes. The new arm was to be a .45 (this was non-negotiable to the participants), trigger actuated (or DA), of good ammo capacity and available both with/without external safety. Results are interesting considering the makeup of the test staff. It appears also that improvements in training and recent field experience held a large influence. The old concerns regarding the ability of various statures to handle the manual of arms and recoil were not issues. Interesting.

That really is interesting. I think that many of the problems associated with recoil being the big bad guy can be attributed to either not putting folks thru enough training or not budgeting funds for enough training. This could be due to simply not having the funds or not having the desire to put those funds to that use.

It looks like that "amount of training and quality of training" are some of the considerations their looking at.

M1894 asked, if they are going to bring back the 1911, why not the Garand or the M-14.

As a matter of fact, they have brought back the M-14, in the form of a National Match rifle, with a scope, issued to "designated marksmen." I was in the Marine Corps for the transition from M-14 to M-16. I confess I never liked the M-16. Although I don't have an M-14 or clone, I do have 2 M-1 Garands, and I plan to get an FAL and M-14 clone.

I also confess to having several 1911s and a Glock Model 20. I can't imagine issuing the Glock 21 to troops. It has a fairly large grip that feels like a 2x4. I would feel fine about issuing 1911s with wide grip safeties and front rails.

It will be interesting to see if they have a full blown shoot-off between contenders like what resulted in the Beretta 20 yrs. ago.

Nobody mentioned the 45 GAP. 21st century technology, big fat bullets, mid sized grips/frames- sounds like a winning combo to me.

More of the myth I see!!! :rolleyes:
The '38' used in the Bore Wars fired a 150 gr LRN bullet at about 700 fps!!! Almost anything would out do that!!!
Enter the 45 (Colt and ACP) with a lead or FMJ bullet which was 80 to 100 grs heavier, had a greater cross sectional area and was 150 to 200 fps FASTER and the results were much better. NOT DRASTICLY BETTER. If you read the actual accounts of those encounters you will find the hand gun, even the beloved 45, was not very good at stopping those warroirs!The Krag with the 220 gr bullets was the best.
Now with the bullet technology of today the 45 ACP WITH FMJ (Ball) can't even come close to the trauma (which is what stops a determined aggressor) caused by even a good 38 sp+p round. But as we know 'prejudice' dies hard. Don't get me wrrong, if I were restriced to FMJ bullets I would opt for the 45 too!!! But if they were to go to a 200 gr at 1000+ fps it would be much better at stopping the fight. It is my understanding that the Special Op guys are not restriced to Ball ammo. If not they could still pick a better round to serve their purpose than the 45 and if they must use the 45 the 165 to 185 gr expanding bullets would work much better. If they were to use the 9 with the Winchester 127 gr +p+ rounds they would not want to change to the 45. They turn the 9 into a Hi-Cap 357 Mag!!!! :) The 40 S&W with the 165 gr would do a better job and your basic load would be alot higher!!
Just some food for thought. ;)

The 40 S&W with the 165 gr. in my experiences is more accurate and stops feral dogs in their tracks.
I prefer the 155-165 grainers in my Walther 99 over the 180.

Remember guys, the rules have been set. The JCP specifies ACP, not GAP. The performance of hollowpoints has no bearing with the limitation of FMJ. The only option left open is the possible adoption (through other channels) of the truncated cone flatpoint or something on the order of the Arcane. On this, we can only hope.

Very true sir,

.45 caliber was designed about 100 years ago. But .40 S&W caliber was designed in mid 80s. As we all know that we had a much better technology in 80s.

What expansion?????? We are talking FMJ here. When you are using that, bigger is better.

Even 9mm with a hollow point expanding bullet will do the job, but we cannot use that kind of ammo for the military.

welllll, the H&K MK23 was made for SOCOM, and is pretty much what they are asking for in the link. as much as i like my MK23, i would have to say the USP Tactical in .45 would probably be just as practical and about half the price (if they even care about cost).

monty